Objectivity
Almost any text has some degree of objectivity. What you are asking about I suppose are discourses that have verified, such as scientifically verified objectivity; yes, there are more than I can remember. Objectivity is multi-factoral. People tends to speak of high objectivity when it's something that is constructed through methods of verification, such as recorded measures by trained operators. There's also the objectivity of relative facts, such as in newspapers, which are not done according to science in the typical sense but rely on the character of the journalist to report honestly what he has witnessed or on him ‘guaranteeing’ his source. Objectivity is the quality of a state which constructs a things' objectness to a human, which is to say the state of the things' relations with what accrues into making it a known object. For example, the objectivity of an event is based on its relations to the impressions that it made: a bomb going off will make impressions on its surroundings, such as destroy a wall, create a flash of light seen by a witness, create a sound heard by witnesses, be recorded to an on-24/7 webcam, throw debris around long distances to be collected by investigators. The objectivity is based on these relations, impressions discovered by tools, eyesight and hearing. Conversely, a mental event of seeing something in the imagination is in the aspect of seeing it merely objective in the sense of a single subject witnessing it internally. A common misunderstanding is that the internally witnessed object doesn’t have objectivity, or that the witnessing doesn’t have any objectivity. This is a misunderstanding of the concept of objectivity. Some mental event that you witness objectively took place, since it’s impossible to witness something which doesn’t take place. A mental event is an event with objectivity to the subject. Witnessing something which is not there is impossible, but witnessing something and thinking it’s something else than it is is possible. Witnessing hallucinations is possible, but they are there as hallucinations. A chair witnessed as a hallucination is there as and in the hallucination. Mental events seen by a single subject have low objectivity, and high subjectivity — converse to the common misconception that they have no objectivity. The witnessing of the object relation configuration which is said to have prompted the physicist Archimedes so shout “Eureka!”—with which he understood that the volume of water displaced must be equal to the volume of the part of the object he had submerged—took place as a mental event, it was witnessed only by a single subject, but it was objective nonetheless. Since the content of subjective events has objectivity, we can project to others, so far as the content of the mental event is externally repeatable, that the information of the content has scientific objectivity, and we can, so far as we have the right tools, demonstrate that. If all mental events had zero objectivity, communication itself would be impossible, since words need to have fundamental objectivity to be at least transmitted and repeated by others — even nonsense words — i.e. they need to have a state of objectness with a number of qualities of relation, a minimum viable objectivity. Because a "nonsense" word I can think of has minimum objectivity, i.e. certain qualities of objectness, I can express it so that it is recorded by a tape or digital recorder, with the declaration that it has a certain meaning, and because that nonsense word has objectivity, i.e. it's not entirely subjective, it will be recorded in another object — the recorder — and can be repeated to a computer or another creature. Relatedly, because of the objectivity of words I can think of from an established language like English in my brain, I can give commands to a voice-controlled computer so that it performs scientific experiments for me. Contrary to what idiots think, admitting the objectivity of the subjective only adds to the theory of objectivity on which the philosophy and operation of science is based, lest they wanna claim that the ground of science in internal discourse is purely subjective and that science is thus based on subjectivity in this aspect. I can literally use "nonsense" words to direct scientific experiments, for example by training computers to perform commands upon processing the impressions they make on the recording faculties of the computing system. Rhizomata * Object; Things; Thingness; Objectness; An object; Tangibility; Consistency; Perceptibility; Conceivability * Cosmos; The universe; State; Veracity; Authenticity * Science; Verification; Objectivity and science; Objectivity and mental health